If Hawaii had no military presence, why would any nation want to drop nuclear weapons on Hawaii, as a primary target?

The employee who accidentally triggered an alert of a nuclear ballistic threat across
Hawaii on Saturday has been temporarily reassigned, state officials said Sunday.

The employee, who officials say was using a computer program during a shift change drill and
clicked through a warning prompt, has been reassigned within the Hawaii Emergency Management
Agency, said agency spokesman Richard Rapoza.

The organization will make a long-term decision on his status after a review, Rapoza said.

Meanwhile,  Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai said in a statement Sunday
that based on what that the federal agency has found out so far, “it appears that the government
of Hawaii did not have reasonable safeguards or process controls in place to prevent the transmission
of a false alert.”

Gov. David Ige repeated his apology on behalf of the state government for the mishap in a statement
Sunday.

“As a state government, we must learn from this unfortunate error and continue to prepare for any
safety threat to Hawaii’s residents and visitors – whether it is a man-made threat or a natural disaster
such as a hurricane or tsunami,” Ige’s statement read.

Ever hear of terrorism?  Unarmed civilians get targeted by terrorists 90% of the time for the shock and awe factor.  It's not farfetched to consider a rogue element taking over the military of a nation, or a faction stealing mobile nukes.

A country like NK might not have a reasonable strategic objective -- Kim could just "snap" one night and decide to end the stalemate by targeting someplace that's less defended than the West Coast.  It demonstrates capability and resolve.

Today, the US is the only nation to have launched nukes against an enemy.  It's only a matter of time before someone tries to knock us off the top of the hill.  We always thought it would be Russia, but as more nations develop nukes, the list grows.

if you indeed have not knowledge of military strategic movements and basing, you might be excused.

But, I think it is more base ignorance and/or unknown hatreds..

The OP, Surf, stated that Hawaii would be a prime target even if it did not have a military presence.

Yes, the terrorism boogieman is everywhere, we must all hide under our beds for fear of the cyber-hacked nuclear or suitcase nuclear bomb.  In all seriousness, outside of terrorism extremists, I find it hard to see any nuclear armed nation target a location that posseses no strategic military presence.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I don't see or have heard of other island locations like American Samoa or Puerto Rico put on some nation's nuclear hit list.

Islands include:

Japan
Okinawa
Guam
Etc

NK has threatened all of them, some verbally, and some by firing test missiles without warning toward their vicinity.

Instead of personal attacks, please share with me the strategic knowledge of why Russia or China for that matter would want to drop nuclear bombs on locations that have no strategic military presence, as in my examples of the island states of American Samoa or Puerto Rico?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I don't see or have heard of other island locations like American Samoa or Puerto Rico put on some nation's nuclear hit list.

Wow! That's some James Bond, Jason Bourne stuff right there! Can you share these target lists?

Islands that are not presently housing military units and equipment may do so in the future during a deployment.  Hitting those locations deprive enemies of airfields, warehouses, harbors, repair and refueling facilities, etc.  As long as countries (including the US) have alliances with those non-military islands, their strategic locations and resources make them vulnerable.

No one knows where the next conflict will be fought.  Until it is, we need to maintain friendly relations with those who can help us or may be used by an enemy to hurt us.

Wow! That's some James Bond, Jason Bourne stuff right there! Can you share these target lists with us? How about sharing your sources with us?

In a previous job, I worked with the master targeting lists the US develops.  Without getting into details (and classified), we have very detailed information on facilities, buildings, and construction for nearly every location we may have to attack in the world.  There may or may not be allies in the database, but we won't let them know.  They may not like the idea of one day being targeted for an air strike.  You know, like Kuwait being overrun, and us using cruise missiles on their territories.

When a mission is ordered, they are very specific -- take out the runway, tower, fuel storage, aircraft hangers, barracks, AA gun placements, missiles, launchers, docks, roads, .... you name it, the mission has a list of what targets are primary, secondary, and targets of opportunity.

If we do this, you know the rest of the countries have this information.  Hell, Manning or another traitor may have given NK our database!

Target lists are not as simple as Kuleana seems to believe.  There are plans in place for a multitude of scenarios.  When that plan is activated, the target lists are created based on that. 

As I said, we won't know until we know where the next enemy will be.

In your unending quest to get into a shouting match, I said I have never read anywhere American Samoa or Puerto Rico were targets of nuclear destruction by any nation.

Have you heard anything?

I have never read anywhere American Samoa or Puerto Rico were not targets of nuclear destruction by any nation.
Have you heard anything?

That is why I am asking.  Do you think they are targets for nuclear destruction?

sorry, but you made the statement first, so I am asking you
"You don't see American Samoa or Puerto Rico living under threat of nuclear missile attack like Hawaii."
I don't see why I should prove or disprove a "fact" that you proposed...

[edited by macsak to include quotation marks around the word- fact]

That is right; I do not see those islands on-par with threat of nuclear destruction as Hawaii, due to the fact Hawaii does have a strong US military presence here, where American Samoa or Puerto Rico does not.  That is why I am asking whether anyone has evidence to show that locations that do not have a strong US military presence live in the same amount of fear of nuclear destruction as Hawaii.

I find it fascinating that some posters are convoluting my basic premise/question.